Associated Press
April 30, 2009
HARTFORD, Conn. - The Connecticut Senate has passed legislation banning people from letting anyone under 16 years old handle or shoot fully automatic machine guns in the state.

The legislation stems from an October incident in which an 8-year-old Ashford boy died when he accidentally shot himself in the head with an Uzi during a gun fair in Westfield, Mass.

The Senate passed the bill on a 31-2 vote Thursday. It now awaits House action.

Seems like another knee jerk reaction by politicians to a very, very unfortunate accident. It's difficult to legislate common sense and that is what was missing when the 8 year old was shot.

I think the problem is with Govements (any of them) trying to legislate common sense which we all know is impossible. When a politician feels impotent on a particular matter, the instinct is to try and pass a law regulating that behavior. Sometimes a particular behavior doesn't attract the atention of a law maker until it touches them personally...then it's a big deal and something needs to be done NOW! Our current pending seatbelt law is a prime example. A politicians child gets killed in an accident while not wearing a seat belt and all of the sudden it's a major issue. The whole incident with the child getting killed with the Uzi was bad supervision and bad luck. Law's won't change that

The legislation stems from an October incident in which an 8-year-old Ashford boy died when he accidentally shot himself in the head with an Uzi during a gun fair in Westfield, Mass.

Would the boy be any less dead if he'd accidentally shot himself in the head with a 1911 or Hi-Power? No? Then everyone who voted for this legislation on the basis of that event should be kicked out of office.

Get a grip guys, its not the end of the world. The candle of freedom isnt being blown out by this puff of air from the Ct legislature.

Failing to object when legislators pass laws based on freak events, particularly when the law only addresses a particular subtype of those freak events and ignores the fact that many other situations not covered by the laws can have equally tragic outcomes, is one reason so many things are over-regulated in so many countries including this one.

Why just automatic weapons? Why not a law that prohibits children under 16 from playing with high explosives, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons, too?

What problem does this legislation seek to address? If it seeks to address children shooting themselves in the head with firearms, it fails because it addresses only a tiny fraction of the firearms used in those cases. Of course nobody (sane) wants to ban children under 16 firing any firearms, primarily because of the hunting tradition (and secondarily because many people recognize target shooting as a relatively safe activity that's legitimate for children as well as adults), so legislators pass BS laws like this in an attempt to pander to their constituents.

Children shooting themselves is tragic, but this sort of pandering and playing on the emotions of the public for political gain is even more tragic.

__________________“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner)
“Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum)
“It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)

I remember when it happened, and those are/were my thoughts. On the other hand i have no issue with those clown signs at the amusement park that say "you must be this tall"
Maybe we need an all encompassing law against accidents.

I don't know what the frequency/stats are on kids under 16 shooting themselves in the head with machine guns while under adult supervision, but i suspect the percentage is low enough to not need a special law. As far as it goes, they really shouldn't even be let outside of the house, the little monkeys.

Quote:

The Connecticut Senate has passed legislation banning people from letting anyone under 16 years old handle XX XXXXX fully automatic machine guns in the state.

Evidently they can't even fondle/inspect an unloaded one at a museum now?? Can they still climb on the anti-aircraft gun or into the B-52 tail gunner's position? Idiotic, haven't read the bill but if it's as reported in the OP....:barf:

__________________

Quote:

The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla

A person who should have known better handed a loaded machine gun to a child. You should not have to tell anyone how bad of an idea that is, but apparently some people feel it is their right to do stupid things.

__________________
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

Get a grip guys, its not the end of the world. The candle of freedom isnt being blown out by this puff of air from the Ct legislature.

Nobody is calling for anarchy, just that our elected officials use common sense. I think tyme has it nailed below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyme

Children shooting themselves is tragic, but this sort of pandering and playing on the emotions of the public for political gain is even more tragic.

In aviation, as with many industries, when a trend of accidents/incidents appears, then procedures are implemented to mitigate the risk. When one accident/incident occurs and it reveals a gaping hole in policy/procedure, then new policy/procedure is developed to address the issue. Though the single occurrence is rare since the task of flying a plane is not uncharted territory, and aviation is already heavily regulated.

If there was a trend of children under the age of 16 shooting themselves, then it might be understandable that new legislation would be proposed; however, I highly doubt this is the case. Referring to aviation again...when a pilot does something that causes an accident, incident, or just an unsafe situation, the FAA has the ability to violate them under the "Careless and Reckless" clause. That is to say, if you weren't breaking any regulations, but knowingly did something that was dangerous, you can have your license revoked, suspended, or at least have a bad mark on your record. We already have similar laws on the books. Cause the death of a person due to your negligence and you can be charged with manslaughter.

If the guy above dies, does there have to be a law against using an electric hand tool, on a metal ladder, in a pool or can we just expect people to use common sense?

Not being a legal beagle - don't normal laws against negligence handle this?

In TX, we had a tragic incident where a young boy fired a 454 Casuall (IIRC) and the end of the barrel recoiled and hit him in the head - killed him. So should we ban by calibers. There was a case where a Desert Eagle 50 AE recoil caused a second shot to decapitate the shooter on the range and it was a range employee. So ban heavy recoiling guns?

I think special laws like this are just political posturing or ill thought out. Normal legal processes could handle this incident.

This is about legislating against handing fully automatic weapons to children.

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, this law is nothing more than knee-jerk legislation. It serves no real purpose.

If the OP is accurate, setting such an arbitrary age (16) is just stupid. Go to any third world country and you will find 16 yr. olds quite capable of handling full auto firearms. Ask anyone who has been in close combat.

Failing to object when legislators pass laws based on freak events, particularly when the law only addresses a particular subtype of those freak events and ignores the fact that many other situations not covered by the laws can have equally tragic outcomes, is one reason so many things are over-regulated in so many countries including this one.

Why just automatic weapons? Why not a law that prohibits children under 16 from playing with high explosives, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons, too?

Theres a loophole then..add that stuff too.

Quote:

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, this law is nothing more than knee-jerk legislation. It serves no real purpose.

Alternatively, it can lookied at as a solution to a problem that has arisen. One mans knee jerk is another mans "don't let under 13s be deli clerks and use the slicer"

Quote:

Go to any third world country and you will find 16 yr. olds quite capable of handling full auto firearms. Ask anyone who has been in close combat.

There is something logically wrong with that argument but being I just woke up and am starting to get tummy stress due to an impending 14 hour flight, I just cant think of it....

For instance, last time I went to the grocery store I got a bottle of wine. The cashier was under 18, so she had to call another guy over to scan the bottle. Apparently she might get drunk from running a bottle over a scanner.

Shouldn't parental responsibility take a place somewhere? Some kids are ready to shoot at a young age (even machine guns), and some aren't. It's up to the parent to decide when the kid is ready, not the legislature.

Where do we draw the line between laws protecting kids and the government overstepping on parental responsibility and discretion?

The story, IIRC, was that some guy buys a Desert Eagle 50 AE at the gun store or rents it. There is an indoor range. Dude goes to the lane and the gun is too much for him. He leaves the gun and tells the range employee that he can use up the box of ammo. The employee is found with two rounds fired. The analysis was that the first round recoil brought the gun back and he spasmodically fired one back into his head.

I have zero interest in letting parents decide when a kid is "ready" to drive a car, drink, work in the -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED- industry, operate bulldozers, or handle automatic weapons.

No one has to like it, but it's a fact that a minority of adults are so damn careless or destructive that -- as in this CT case -- they'd decide that kids are "ready" for all of the above when they're 8 years old. And then there's suddenly huge danger for the kids and us.

Laws are written to protect against aberrant behavior, not the norm.

Quote:

Where do we draw the line between laws protecting kids and the government overstepping on parental responsibility and discretion?

You're right, that's the question (except these laws don't just protect the kids; they protect adults too, and society). And that all gets worked out in the neverending debates among the public, their representatives, and the courts.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.